
Badenoch not telling truth about Tory failures, says Truss
Writing in The Telegraph, the former prime minister says the Tories are in 'serious trouble' unless they begin to admit the failings they made in their last government on human rights and the economy.
It comes after Mrs Badenoch wrote in The Telegraph that Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves were making 'even bigger mistakes' than Ms Truss and had not learnt the lessons of her mini-budget.
Responding, Ms Truss says: 'It is disappointing that instead of serious thinking like this, Kemi Badenoch is instead repeating spurious narratives.
'I suspect she is doing this to divert from the real failures of 14 years of Conservative government in which her supporters are particularly implicated.
'It was a fatal mistake not to repeal Labour legislation like the Human Rights Act because the modernisers wanted to be the 'heirs to Blair'.
'Huge damage was done to our liberties through draconian lockdowns and enforcement championed by Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings.
'The economy was wrecked with profligate Covid spending by Sunak. The huge increase in immigration has been a disaster.'
The remarks risk igniting a row in the Conservative Party over Ms Truss's legacy.
Previously, Mrs Badenoch had only criticised Ms Truss in private, telling her shadow cabinet in January that it would be helpful if she made fewer interventions.
But in an article for The Telegraph, Mrs Badenoch said: 'For all their mocking of Liz Truss, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-budget and are making even bigger mistakes. They continue to borrow more and more, unable and unwilling to make the spending cuts needed to balance the books.'
Almost three years after the mini-budget of September 2022, Ms Reeves and Sir Keir still regularly resort to blaming the mini-budget for unpopular decisions on tax and spending.
But some in the Conservative Party argue that Ms Truss had the right vision for a low-tax economy.
Writing in The Telegraph, Ms Truss accuses her successor of spreading 'spurious narratives'.
She says: 'Kemi Badenoch has said Labour need to learn the lessons of the mini-budget and are making even bigger mistakes. She is wrong.
' Labour is doing the opposite of the mini-budget, which is why the country is headed for disaster.
'The mini-budget was the right approach at the right time that would have resulted in higher growth, lower debt and cheaper energy… Contrary to what Kemi says, it's not true that we had no plans to restrain spending. We wanted to link welfare increases to wages rather than prices, which would have saved £7bn in that year alone.'
Ms Truss says it was impossible to bring in policies associated with Javier Milei, the Argentine president, when Conservative MPs did not even support welfare reform.
She calls for the Office of Budget Responsibility to be scrapped and Bank of England independence to be rescinded, and says new leadership should be appointed at the Treasury.
The former prime minister quotes Mrs Badenoch who said in a recent speech: 'From now on, we are going to be telling the British people the truth even when it is difficult to hear.'
Ms Truss concludes: 'If she's not willing to tell the truth to her own supporters, the Conservative Party is in serious trouble.'
In her now infamous mini-budget in September 2022, Ms Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng, her chancellor, announced a series of surprise tax cuts. It was not accompanied by a forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility, nor did it contain any spending restraints.
It provoked a calamitous market reaction, with government borrowing costs surging and higher mortgage rates. Ms Truss resigned the next month.
Sir Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, had led internal Tory criticism of the mini-budget, vowing last month that the party would 'never, ever' repeat it.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch, one of Mrs Badenoch's closest allies, told a meeting in June that the party had 'done the apologies' and should now move on to setting out policies.
But a few weeks later Alex Burghart, the shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, told activists that the Tories should keep acknowledging their mistakes.
A Conservative Party spokesman said: 'Labour are doubling down on the mistakes of the past – and Reform would go even further with more welfare spending and more borrowing. Only the Conservative Party is committed to reducing government spending and ensuring the country lives within its means.'
The real failures of 14 years of Conservative government
By Liz Truss
Kemi Badenoch has said Labour need to learn the lessons of the mini-budget and are making even bigger mistakes. She is wrong. Labour is doing the opposite of the mini-budget, which is why the country is headed for disaster.
The mini-budget was the right approach at the right time that would have resulted in higher growth, lower debt and cheaper energy. The 45p income tax rate raises virtually no revenue; abolishing it would help retain talent. Corporation tax kept at 19 per cent would have attracted businesses. Fracking would have lowered British energy prices and saved manufacturing industry.
Contrary to what Kemi says, it's not true that we had no plans to restrain spending. We wanted to link welfare increases to wages rather than prices, which would have saved £7bn in that year alone – far more than Labour's botched reforms. However, many Conservative MPs would not support it and it was their lack of support that was one of the primary problems. A Javier Milei agenda was just not possible in 2022 when the Conservative Parliamentary Party even baulked at welfare savings.
We can see from the counterfactual of both Sunak/Hunt and Starmer/Reeves that instead of the 'unfunded tax cuts' I was accused of, we have 'unfunded tax rises'. Whether the abolition of non-dom status or the increase in capital gains tax, our astronomic tax burden has driven talent out of the country and killed growth. This economic doom loop is likely to lead to a financial collapse and an inability for the UK to fund its debt.
The mini-budget was precisely a chance to escape this doom loop. Yet, it was sabotaged by the Bank of England and the Treasury – which didn't want to be challenged and wanted to cover up their failings – and Conservative MPs who either didn't believe in supply-side economics or cravenly wanted preferment under a Sunak premiership.
The price of British debt is now consistently higher than it was in 2022, yet Reeves does not face the constant wall of noise that I did, nor the level of criticism from those who were allegedly on side.
Failure to regulate
The guns were trained on me but the real culprit was the Bank of England. It admitted in a paper released last year that two-thirds of the market movement in autumn 2022 was down to its failure to regulate the pensions market. One of its jobs is ensuring financial stability. Another is holding down inflation. It failed on both counts.
The criticism of my failing to secure a forecast from the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) is also hogwash. Rishi Sunak did not seek an OBR forecast for Covid spending nor did Rachel Reeves for her 2025 spending review – both of which cost far more than the mini-budget package.
The difference was that I was taking on the economic establishment rather than going along with it. The Bank of England blamed me in order to protect its position. It has huge entrenched power and a ready audience in the mainstream media. After the Blair government made it unaccountable, monetary policy is no longer in the hands of the elected government.
The situation was made even worse when George Osborne established the OBR, embedding a Left-wing approach to fiscal policy. The OBR has consistently underestimated public spending and overestimated the revenue from tax rises. Despite every Budget that has been scored by the OBR 'hitting the debt target', borrowing always comes in 'higher than expected'.
If a new government wants serious economic change – emulating the policies of Milei and Trump – it will have to dismantle this apparatus first. Power must be returned to the executive to implement economic policy. The Bank of England Act 1998 should be repealed. The OBR should be abolished and new leadership appointed at the Treasury.
The Prime Minister – like the president of the United States – should be responsible for public spending with a similar structure to the US Office of Management and Budget.
Spurious narratives
It is disappointing that instead of serious thinking like this Kemi Badenoch is instead repeating spurious narratives. I suspect she is doing this to divert from the real failures of 14 years of Conservative government in which her supporters are particularly implicated.
It was a fatal mistake not to repeal Labour legislation like the Human Rights Act because the 'modernisers' wanted to be the 'heirs to Blair'. Huge damage was done to our liberties through draconian lockdowns and enforcement championed by Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings. The economy was wrecked with profligate Covid spending by Sunak. The huge increase in immigration has been a disaster.
In a recent speech Kemi said 'From now on, we are going to be telling the British people the truth even when it is difficult to hear'. If she's not willing to tell the truth to her own supporters, the Conservative Party is in serious trouble.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
14 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The Royal Navy needs to develop a completely new idea of what a warship is
For many decades, the Royal Navy's thinking and therefore its shipbuilding has remained unchanged. We have had capital ships: aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers and amphibious platforms. We've also had frigates and destroyers (the backbone) to hunt submarines and provide area air defence – but more often than not to look like a warship and do warship type influence operations. Then there were an array of smaller ships for charting and patrolling the oceans and hunting both mines and maritime crooks such as fish thieves. Finally there are two types of nuclear powered submarines: attack boats and the strategic deterrent. But when you look at what we want from our navy now and the resources that are available to do it, no matter how much of a traditionalist you are, it is impossible to see how this model is sustainable. For navies to function across the huge range of tasks they need to undertake they need both balance and mass. The current Royal Navy has good balance from diplomacy to fighting but is woefully short on mass. You don't need to be a maritime historian to know how that ends when the shooting starts. I will leave the Royal Fleet Auxiliary out of it for this article as I've written about them recently. Focusing on surface vessels, there are three broad types of ships that we now need to consider adding to the traditional mix outlined above. Actually, we don't need to consider it, we need to do it. These are ships taken up from trade, medium sized low- or un-crewed vessels and autonomous small craft and weapons. Ships taken up from trade include vessels like HMS Stirling Castle (mine warfare), RFA Proteus and HMS Scott (surveillance) and HMS Protector (ice patrol). These are ships built to a commercial specification that the Navy then leases or buys for use on operations. They are not fighting ships; their lack of self-defence systems, watertight integrity and machinery plants do not permit it, but that doesn't mean they don't have tremendous utility. It's a truism of navies that they spend more of their time setting the conditions to avoid fighting than actually fighting – this is where these ships sit. And given how hard it is to fund and sustain the high end stuff, we need to get better at buying and running them. Autonomous vessels can be split into two: those that are large enough to operate on their own and those that need support from a mother ship. I'm going to focus on the former although one only needs a cursory knowledge of this subject to know that for both, the rate at which we are progressing in this field, and the rate at which we need to, are wildly different. As is so often the case, enter the US and their recently announced Modular Attack Surface Craft (MASC) programme. This is a fascinating programme that is set to move from concept to prototype to delivery in less than two years, the kind of pace that would make traditional ship manufacturers weep. It is still some way short of Ukraine's ability to build new systems but it's fast for a peacetime programme. The three models have been outlined with how many containers they can carry seemingly determining their size. The largest will take 'four or more' ISO containers, the middle one takes two of the same and the smallest, one half-size container. Endurance for the larger one is around the 60 day mark 'without crew intervention'. Here I have a query because in a ship roughly 60m long and with a 3m draft, unless you're going everywhere at two knots, then this is a stretch but I'll leave it for now. The larger two also have optional crewing options. In the real world they'll probably have people aboard a lot of the time, as security guards if nothing else, but the people will tend to get off once the risk level goes up. What these low- or un-crewed MASC ships will be used for is less clear at this stage, but from the work the US is doing on containerised weapons systems, and the way one of the models has its drive train configured, it looks as though they will be focussed on anti-air capabilities (traditionally conducted by destroyers) and anti-submarine (frigate). On this subject, I do find myself disagreeing with doctrine purists who always want to see ships being built in response to a carefully crafted master strategy. In reality, the things you are going to want your ships to do haven't changed at either the soft or hard power end of the continuum for a long time. Diplomacy, disaster relief, freedom of navigation, littoral operations, strike, anti-submarine and air operations remain constant no matter how potential adversaries develop methods to try to deny them. This is the eternal cat and mouse of weapons development with the only certainty being that if you wait too long for the perfect kit, or because your system is slow, or because you don't have any cash, you will fall behind. In other words, just build them, the rest will follow. From a UK perspective there are at least four uses for ships like this that are blindingly obvious. There will be others. Missile defence is one and would work equally well in far blue water or around the UK. It would be far better to have a dozen of these ships with containerised SM-6 interceptors (this has been trialled by the US) than hugely expensive systems ashore that can only do one job – or just one or two exquisite destroyers with large crews in 15 or 20 years' time. The containerised data links and ability to transmit a radar picture to these vessels exist now. If we insist on full-fat destroyers with 100+ missile tubes they will cost billions apiece and we will never have enough. We should instead conceive our destroyers as flotilla leaders for MASC-type vessels with containerised weapons to bulk up our firepower. Likewise with anti-submarine warfare (ASW) in the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and beyond, low- or un-crewed ships with containerised kit could be vital. Anyone who has spent a life at sea gets nervous when tech companies start talking about deploying small short-range systems from mother ships for ASW because it is so often conducted in conditions where just walking around the ship is a challenge, much less deploying and recovering smaller craft. These larger MASC vessels avoid that problem. Another solution would be to deploy one-shot small systems: we already do this with sonobuoys. If it's cheap and numerous enough, this will work. A flotilla of medium autonomous ships with an exquisite Type 26 frigate somewhere in the vicinity running the show starts sounding a lot like balance and mass. A single Type 26, no matter how lovely, does not. And there are companies like Ocean Infinity who have already built medium sized autonomous ships. Defence should allocate resources to allow the Royal Navy to buy them now. Caveats do come to mind on unmanned ships: enemies will probably be much more willing to attack or sink them than manned ones, or even board and seize them. Certainly the bigger types need to be optionally crewed. It will probably often be worthwhile to have a highly skilled maintenance troubleshooter or two aboard, or an experienced bridge watchstander for crowded waters. But they won't always be needed, and there will certainly be no need for the large numbers of semi-skilled maintainers, sensor and weapon operators, cooks, administrators etc that make up most of today's warship crews. There is also of course the risk that unmanned ships might be hacked – though this is also becoming a risk with manned systems. Very little of this discussion is new: the Strategic Defence Review refers to much of it and Naval plans talk about uncrewed sloops (the Type 92) but that's the point – they're being discussed. We need to take a leaf out of the US playbook and just buy it. The Royal Navy has some excellent kit and people but is so short on both that its deterrent effect has been eroded. This is a quick and relatively cheap way out of this hole. Let's see if the US, whose macro fleet issues are similar – albeit much scaled up – can do any better.


Reuters
14 minutes ago
- Reuters
Morning bid: Bad news is good news for markets craving Fed 'rocket fuel'
A look at the day ahead in European and global markets from Rocky Swift Markets are trying hard to see the bright side of bad news in the United States, anticipating dour data will trigger the economic "rocket fuel" of Federal Reserve interest rate cuts so craved by President Donald Trump. Odds for a September cut now stand at about 94%, CME Fedwatch showed, from 63% last week. Market participants see at least two quarter-point cuts by year-end. The odds shot up after disappointing non-farm payrolls data on Friday, causing equity markets to swoon and Trump to shoot the messenger, firing the head of labour statistics and promising to replace her within days. Institutional independence is turning into a short bet in the U.S. The early resignation of Fed Governor Adriana Kugler will let Trump pick her successor, adding to concerns about partisan loyalty invading the staid world of central bank policy. Asian markets followed gains on Wall Street, with MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan (.MIAPJ0000PUS), opens new tab up 0.4%. South Korea's Kospi (.KS11), opens new tab stood out with a 1% jump, while Vietnamese shares traded near a record high. Data today from the region's two biggest economies showed resilience in their service sectors in the face of headwind from Trump's chaotic introduction of tariffs on goods from trading partners. In Japan, the S&P Global final services purchasing managers' index (PMI) climbed to 53.6 in July from 51.7 in June for the strongest expansion since February. China's services activity last month expanded at its fastest pace in more than a year. A slew of PMIs for July are due for release today across Europe. In earnings, the second-quarter U.S. results season is winding down, but investors are still looking forward to reports this week from big names including Walt Disney (DIS.N), opens new tab and Caterpillar (CAT.N), opens new tab. Equity futures are pointing to gains in European and U.S. markets, with the pan-region Euro Stoxx 50 futures up 0.13% and the S&P 500 e-minis rising 0.14%. Key developments that could influence markets on Tuesday: Trying to keep up with the latest tariff news? Our new daily news digest offers a rundown of the top market-moving headlines impacting global trade. Sign up for Tariff Watch here.


BBC News
14 minutes ago
- BBC News
Norfolk and Suffolk Police merger not on cards says commissioner
A police and crime and commissioner said she doubted two forces would be merged - as she announced her job was coming to an Sarah Taylor – who won the election to become Norfolk's commissioner last year – said the role's responsibilities would be transferred to a new mayor's office in the planned mayor responsible for Norfolk and Suffolk, there has been speculation that the county's two police forces could be Taylor said her understanding was that a merger was "not on the cards at all". Last month, Conservative MP Nick Timothy said he believed a merger would take place and it would be a "disaster". Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are elected officials responsible for setting the priorities of a constabulary, appointing a chief constable and holding them to an election is set to take place in May 2026 to choose the first mayor to run a new combined authority for the the government confirmed it wanted the PCC roles to be absorbed into the work of mayors, the West Suffolk MP Timothy said he thought that would lead to one force covering two counties."It would take decision-making and accountability even further away from where people live.""We need the police really focused on local crimes, on burglaries, on street crime, and that means we need local accountability." Whilst the two forces are separate they do currently work together on some operations such as roads policing and armed said she had asked the Home Office if a merger was a said: "My understanding is that is not on the cards at all, and certainly if it is, they're not talking with us about that transition period.""As to whether that should happen I'm fairly agnostic about it. "I know that would give us a similar level of population of somewhere like North Yorkshire, or Devon and Cornwall – and certainly they seem to work well in that setup. "I don't see a particular reason why that would be detrimental to the service within Norfolk."PCCs serve four year terms in office, but with major changes being made to local government, Taylor said her's would end on 1 April 2027 – less than three years after she was elected."This will mean that I'm not only Labour's first Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk, but I will also be Norfolk's shortest serving Police and Crime Commissioner."She added that her "primary focus" was to make sure services were not affected whilst work took place transferring the role's responsibility to a mayor."I think it's fair to say the nuts and bolts of this will need to be worked through," she Home Office has been asked for comment. Follow Norfolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.